scaffold_custom_table

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description lists what is generated (table, model, hooks, cleanup) but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond that. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden. It omits details like whether files are created or overwritten, if it modifies existing files, or permissions needed. Still, it gives a fair overview of the output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 22 words with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action ('Generate a custom database table') and lists key components (migration, model, hooks, cleanup). A slight improvement could be breaking into two sentences for readability, but it's already concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (generates multiple artifacts) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It names the outputs but does not explain the return value (likely file paths or success message) or the scope of changes. It could be improved by mentioning what happens on execution (e.g., files are created in specific locations).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 4 required parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%—each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool generates a custom database table with dbDelta() migration, a CRUD model class, activation hook, and uninstall cleanup. It uses specific verb 'generate' and concrete resources (table, model, hook, cleanup), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like scaffold_crud_module or scaffold_plugin that generate broader modules.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Among many sibling scaffolding tools (e.g., scaffold_crud_module, scaffold_rest_module), an agent would have no basis to choose this one without further context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.